2026:JHHC:3443 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.386 of 2021 ------ Poonam Kumari, wife of Sri Binod Bihari Gorai, resident of Village Aamdih, P.O. & P.S. Pindrajora, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Women and Child Development, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 4. Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 5. District Social Welfare Officer, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 6. Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Chas Rural, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 7. Seema Devi, wife of Vivek Kumar Mahto, resident of Village Aamdih, P.O. & P.S. Pindrajora, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shishir Suman, AC to AAG-III Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, through V.C. Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rahul, Advocate ------ 12/ 09.02.2026 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel representing the private respondent, appears through virtual mode. There is no complaint with regard to clarity or quality in audio or video. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.7 – Seema Devi, as “Anganwadi Sevika”, in “Aamdih Village Anganwadi Centre No.307, Block Chas”. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a 2026:JHHC:3443 2 Graduate, whereas respondent No.7 who has been selected is an Undergraduate, thus preference could not have been given to respondent No.7. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the appointment was made after two years of the “Aam Sabha” as even the “Aam Sabha” has not conclusively recommended any person for the said time. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondent – State and respondent No.7, submit that it was found that more than 50% of the villagers present in the “Aam Sabha”, were in favour of respondent No.7. It is their case that respondent No.7 was a handicapped, thus her case was considered and she was appointed. 6. In this case, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In this case, I find that both the petitioner and the respondent No.7 were eligible to be appointed. Though, it has been mentioned that preference should be given to the person with higher qualification but admittedly, the petitioner was also qualified to be appointed as per the guidelines and instructions. 8. Be it noted that the provision provides that the minimum qualification would be “Intermediate”, and admittedly the petitioner is an “Intermediate”. The petitioner claims that without giving preference to the petitioner, respondent No.7 has been appointed, when the provision provides that preference will be given to higher qualification. 2026:JHHC:3443 3 9. I find that though respondent No.7 has been appointed but there was a valid reason for appointing her. The Appointing Authority found that respondent No.7 is a handicapped person, thus she was chosen, bypassing the others. Further, the Appointing Authority came to conclusion that more than 50% of the villagers had supported the case of respondent No.7. 10. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.7 also fulfilled the qualification for appointment and considering her handicapped status, she was appointed. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition by exercising my discretionary jurisdiction in this case, that too, when respondent No.7 is working for more than five years. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 09th February, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 11.02.2026